Judge Overrules Samsung Objection To Jury Instructional Video 232
itwbennett (1594911) writes "U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh on Sunday overruled Samsung Electronics' objections to showing jurors a recent instructional video on how patents work, ahead of a trial in a patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The new video, called 'The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,' was developed by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system. Samsung's objection is to several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used (and, by extension, seen as patentable and innovative)."
Please implode already? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm seriously tired of this crap. I no longer care who wins or loses in any of this. The patent system is simply being abused in every which way. Software patents have got to go as do design patents as petty as rounded corners. This idiocy has got to end at some point. I honestly expected it to come to a head before now. This is like walking in mud from New York to California.
Is there any law against competent jurors? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not convinced someone who doesn't know what a patent is BEFORE being selected is
the best person to decide a case like this. Why can't we have scientists in the jury when
it's scientific, medical professionals when it's medical in nature, computer experts when
it is computer related, etc... I think it's unrealistic to pick someone who doesn't know what
a patent/modem/etc.. is and expect them to make an accurate decision when they don't
understand the technology or process involved.
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see what they're complaining about. I skimmed through the video, and the Apple logo was clearly shown on Apple devices. I didn't notice other brands shown anywhere. They should have been a little better about covering up all references to specific devices (i.e., the logos).
I could see the implied "Apple is ok, they're even in our instructional video". So ... someone has to go edit, and then they have to go find themselves a new jury who's never heard of Apple or Samsung. I'm surprised they found enough for the jury to start with.
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a quick video montage of inventions starting at the 2:55 mark which features an old polycarbonate MacBook (or a late-model iBook?), an iPad, and an iPhone, but the logos are not visible on any of them. To be perfectly honest, despite having owned an iPad and that model of iPhone, I didn't even recognize them as being Apple products until I re-watched the video, just because of the angles they were shot at and the actions the scenes were focusing on. Had I not been looking for them, I wouldn't have seen them.
The only Apple product that is on-screen for any length of time, as well as being the only one with the logo clearly visible, is what appears to be a MacBook Pro being used by the actor portraying an inventor, but in no way was it suggested that the computer itself was the invention. Rather, the invention was some CAD diagram he had on his computer. Even so, the computer does get quite a bit of screen time with the shining Apple logo clearly visible.
The phone and tablet shown in the video aren't particularly identifiable on their own, but shown immediately after an Apple laptop a viewer would automatically assume them to be an iPhone and iPad.
The trial is about whether Samsung violated Apple's patents on phones and tablets. The video leaves the impression that not only are Apple's patents valid, but they're such amazing examples of patents that the Federal Justice Center chose them out of countless possible inventions as examples.
I'm not sure you can get much more prejudicial than "you need to decide whether Apple's iPhone and iPad patents are valid, to understand the issue here's a video made by the courts that gives examples of good patents... like Apple's iPhone and iPad patents".
There was an earlier version of the video [youtube.com] that Samsung wanted them to use. I honestly don't understand the decision.
Re:Bad law... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Apple Macbook is shown in the video being used to prepare a patent application, or to display the inventor's design on screen. there is a sack in the background, what looks like a coffee cup you would get from a coffee shop, and a smart phone on the table off to the side, not the subject of the discussion --- it might be an iPhone; i'm not sure... it's not part of the discussion or an example of an invention... it's just in the backgroun environment
Re:Bad law... (Score:3, Interesting)
Another means to educate the jurors - one that does not include any references at all to either litigant's products - should be chosen.
I think the Wright Brothers patent war with Glenn Curtis [ushistoryscene.com] would be a good start, and then this [std.com]...
Re:Bad law... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Blatant conflict of interest (Score:0, Interesting)
Samsung has nothing to worry about. The judge is Korean.
This judge is North Korean and seems to have a major grudge against the people (Koreans) who mistreated her daddy. She has had it in for Samsung since the very beginning. She Allowed Apple to show that Samsung phones were similar to Apple phones (rectangular with rounded corners) whilst she excluded evidence that Apple phones were also similar to earlier Samsung phones (rectangular with rounded corners) and even more similar to LG phones (look up the "Prada" phone).
The judge gave explicit instructions that the jury were to do calculations based on evidence of actual damages. When it was clear that they had punished Samsung on a completely different basis (they gave damages to Apple for a tablet they found non infringing [groklaw.net]) and that this was driven by a patent holding jury foreman with a grudge against Samsung instead of declaring a mistrial (as she must) she found a way to fix up the wrongly inflicted damages.
This is the most perfect example that no non-American company can expect justice from a US court.
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at 4:43. It is a perfect example of how I would design intentional bias.
Its a freeze frame with the apple logo and the text slowly imposed. "New, Useful, not obvious to one skilled in the field.".
The text frames the apple logo making part of the natural scan of the eyes. The word "one" hangs above the logo.
The Apple logo is the brightest item in image and placed at rule-of-thirds-intersection. No other image detail competes with the logo i.e. no human eyes, no coffee logo, no bag logo, no logo in the t-shirt, no logos in the background etc. Its form is clear despite the filter blurring out other features of the image.
Before and after the freeze-frame, the logo is shown and the direction of the inventor's gaze is always towards the apple logo.
A disgraceful infommercial.